• HighestDifficulty [he/him]
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    I think there's a significant difference. Both sides exploit the power dynamic but only one side disrupts it's equilibrium. On one side you have the placating effect of maintaining that power dynamic in a somewhat functional way....not great for humanity for one reason. And you have the other side who exposes it's violence through their absolute corruption but are a spiraling display of increasingly evil actions....not great for humanity for another reason.

    This is why accelerationism is a thing.

      • HighestDifficulty [he/him]
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 years ago

        I'd be making the concession despite know what the outcome is likely to be, is what I was trying to articulate.

          • HighestDifficulty [he/him]
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            4 years ago

            You mean I'm not in denial and that's bad? I'm not even America so I have no say in the outcome anyway. I was just pointing out my own rationalisations for why one side may be better than the other. It's all a shit train but lets not pretend like you have a third revolutionary option just waiting to spring if you just had a few more bodies in your corner. The scales aren't even close to being tipped by public support alone, not in America anyway.

            • Amorphous [any]
              ·
              4 years ago

              lets not pretend like you have a third revolutionary option just waiting to spring if you just had a few more bodies in your corner.

              That ... is exactly what we have though. We need to organize in order to build networks of allies who are ready when the time comes. We don't just have "a third option," we have countless different revolutionary options we could choose if we had the manpower.